急性坏死性胰腺炎的外科治疗(文献综述)

近年来,对急性坏死性胰腺炎,已由单纯的胰腺引流手术转到胰腺规则性切除术以及胰腺坏死组织清除术,从而使治疗效果有了提高,并使一些过去认为无法医治的病人得到了挽救。本文的目的就是对近年来外科治疗急性坏死性胰腺炎的进展作一综述。首先,本文所指急性坏死性胰腺炎,包括急性出血性-坏死性胰腺炎和急性化脓性胰腺炎,这三种类型是同一病理变化的不同表现。其次,关于急性水肿性胰腺炎和急性坏死性胰腺炎是否同一疾病的两个阶段的问题,根据 Edelmann G.等作者的临床观察,特别是最近 Boutelier,Ph.的病理研究发现急     

急性坏死性胰腺炎保守治疗成功1例临床分析及文献复习

目的 总结急性坏死性胰腺炎继发包裹性胰腺坏死的特点、诊断及治疗方法.方法 回顾性分析我院1例急性坏死性胰腺炎继发包裹性胰腺坏死的治疗经过,总结包裹性胰腺坏死的发病机制、临床特点及外科治疗并复习近期国内外相关文献.结果 该例包裹性胰腺坏死经保守治疗后自行消退.结论 部分无菌性包裹性胰腺坏死经保守治疗后可自行消退,继发感染时应微创或手术治疗.     

急性坏死性胰腺炎的外科干预:时机比技术更重要

目前,围绕急性坏死性胰腺炎的手术和非手术治疗、早期手术还是后期手术、微创干预还是开放手术等问题,仍在探索中不断取得进步并逐步形成共识。进一步探索清除胰腺坏死组织最佳手术时机及手术技术、实施微创与开放相结合的外科干预策略、提高针对胰腺坏死组织延期一次性手术清除的成功率,是降低急性坏死性胰腺炎后期病死率的关键。近20年来,对急性坏死性胰腺炎局部并发症病理转归多样性认识的深化,划时代改变了急性坏死性胰腺炎后期的治疗模式。从20世纪末的早期开腹手术引流减压到计划性多次手术清创,再到延期一次性手术,以及近年来探索实施的创伤递进式手术策略,随着治疗理念的变革,逐步实现了疗效的突破。相较于坏死组织的清除技术,手术时机的选择对治疗成功更具重要意义。根据现有针对急性坏死性胰腺炎循证医学研究结果,鉴于急性坏死性胰腺炎病情的复杂性、个体间的差异性、以及有限的多中心研究结果,目前尚不能确定外科技术对改善预后的优势;而手术时机的正确把握,对提高急性坏死性胰腺炎手术治疗效果的地位不容置疑。笔者回顾性分析其团队收治的1000余例外科治疗急性坏死性胰腺炎患者的临床资料,探讨针对急性坏死性胰腺炎后期局部并发症外科干预时机及技术对改善预后的临床意义。     

急性坏死性胰腺炎和感染（附57例临床分析）

该文总结近10年内57例急性坏死性胰腺炎,重点研究胰腺和胰周组织细菌感染对病人的全身影响。局部感染的三种主要形式为急性胆管炎,胰腺脓肿和感染性坏死。这些感染明显增加了病死率,对其早期发现和手术处理有利于改善急性坏死性胰腺炎的预后。     

超声引导下细针穿刺细胞学检查在诊断胰腺坏死感染的作用

坏死胰腺感染是急性胰腺炎首要并发症，间质水肿性胰腺炎很少并发感染，但胰腺如有坏死，感染发生率明显增高，可达80％，从而导致死亡率和其它并发症发生率升高。近来，坏死性胰腺炎首选保守治疗，但如果证实坏死胰腺有感染就必须行手术治疗。感染对坏死性胰腺炎的治疗及预后有很重要的影响，临床表现和生化检查不能确定坏死胰腺有无感染，这就需要有一种能早期发现感染的诊断方法。本文目的是评价超声引导下细针穿刺细胞学检查（FNAC）应用于坏死性胰腺炎的临床价值。病例和方法从1988年1月至1996年9月共有98例坏死性胰腺炎患者行超声引…     

急性坏死性胰腺炎治疗的发展

1简介 急性胰腺炎分为轻症及重症,大部分的病人可从支持治疗中康复过来。但重症急性胰腺炎伴有胰腺坏死组织感染的病人则有着高并发症及死亡率,其临床上最佳治疗方案仍有争议性。在过去的30年,急性坏死性胰腺炎的治疗方向有重大的改变,包括：由对无菌性坏死性胰腺炎以外科手术为主要的治疗手段进展至以非手术治疗为主要的治疗手段、由对感染坏死性胰腺炎作简单的胰周引流方法进展至坏死病灶部分的手术切除、由较早时机的介入手术治疗进展至较晚时机的介入手术治疗、由传统的开腹手术进展至微创手术治疗的选择。     

CT检查对急性坏死性胰腺炎的诊治价值

ＣＴ检查对急性坏死性胰腺炎的诊治价值徐博良金庆丰急性坏死性胰腺炎的诊断与治疗，近年来已取得较大进展，病死率有所下降。但由于对胰腺坏死及其程度，有无感染和并发症等诊断的困难，而影响及时治疗与方法选择，疗效观察和预后，因此本病的病死率仍高。作者自１９９５...     

��Ƥ�����������ٻ�����Ⱦ����Ҫ��

急性坏死性胰腺炎的治疗一直是个极具挑战性的难题。急性胰腺炎中20%病人为坏死性胰腺炎,坏死性胰腺炎中10%～70%会发生感染,即胰腺坏死感染(IPN)。IPN常发生在病程的第3～8周,属急性胰腺炎中期并发症,也是最严重并发症之一,常加重或导致病人的多器官功能衰竭、出血等并发症,即使接受最好的ICU治疗,不进行外科干预病死率几乎高达100%[1]。     

急性坏死性胰腺炎的外科治疗现状

急性坏死性胰腺炎的外科治疗现状张臣烈急性坏死性胰腺炎是一个复杂而又严重的急腹症。自从ＣＴ增强扫描在临床上应用，再与临床症状与体征的结合，使急性坏死性胰腺炎的诊断已基本解决；而且通过ＣＴ增强扫描还可了解坏死胰腺的部位、范围以及胰外渗出情况。这样对急性坏...     

78例急性胰腺炎患者的护理体会

<正>急性胰腺炎是临床外科常见急腹症,多由胰酶对胰腺组织的"消化"作用引起。可分为水肿性胰腺炎和出血坏死性胰腺炎。出血坏死性胰腺炎病情进展迅速,易引起严重的腹膜炎及多脏器功能损害,病死率高。2011-8-2013-8间,我科收治急性胰腺炎患者78例,4例重症患者采取紧急手术治疗,清除胰腺和胰周坏死组织,腹腔灌洗引流。其余74例均采取非手术治疗,给予控制饮食和胃肠减压、静脉补充水分电解质和热能、减少胰酶分泌、抑制胰酶作用、消炎止痛等治疗及护理措施,均痊愈出院,现将护理体会总结如下。     

Management of Severe Acute Pancreatitis

Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) develops in about 25% of patients with acute pancreatitis. Severity of acute pancreatitis is linked to the presence of systemic organ dysfunctions and/or necrotizing pancreatitis. Risk factors independently determining the outcome of SAP are early multiorgan failure (MOF), infection of necrosis, and extended necrosis (>50%). Morbidity of SAP is biphasic, in the first week it is strongly related to systemic inflammatory response syndrome while, sepsis due to infected pancreatic necrosis leading to MOF syndrome occurs in the later course after the first week. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography provides the highest diagnostic accuracy for necrotizing pancreatitis when performed after the first week of disease. Patients who suffer early organ dysfunctions or are at risk for developing a severe disease require early intensive care treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis has not been shown as an effective preventive treatment. Early enteral feeding is based on a high level of evidence, resulting in a reduction of local and systemic infection. Patients suffering infected necrosis causing clinical sepsis are candidates for intervention. Hospital mortality of SAP after interventional or surgical debridement has decreased to below 20% in high-volume centers.     

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis: treatment strategy according to the status of infection

OBJECTIVE: To determine benefits of conservative versus surgical treatment in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Infection of pancreatic necrosis is the most important risk factor contributing to death in severe acute pancreatitis, and it is generally accepted that infected pancreatic necrosis should be managed surgically. In contrast, the management of sterile pancreatic necrosis accompanied by organ failure is controversial. Recent clinical experience has provided evidence that conservative management of sterile pancreatic necrosis including early antibiotic administration seems promising. METHODS: A prospective single-center trial evaluated the role of nonsurgical management including early antibiotic treatment in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreatic infection, if confirmed by fine-needle aspiration, was considered an indication for surgery, whereas patients without signs of pancreatic infection were treated without surgery. RESULTS: Between January 1994 and June 1999, 204 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis were recruited. Eighty-six (42%) had necrotizing disease, of whom 57 (66%) had sterile and 29 (34%) infected necrosis. Patients with infected necrosis had more organ failures and a greater extent of necrosis compared with those with sterile necrosis. When early antibiotic treatment was used in all patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (imipenem/cilastatin), the characteristics of pancreatic infection changed to predominantly gram-positive and fungal infections. Fine-needle aspiration showed a sensitivity of 96% for detecting pancreatic infection. The death rate was 1.8% (1/56) in patients with sterile necrosis managed without surgery versus 24% (7/29) in patients with infected necrosis (P <.01). Two patients whose infected necrosis could not be diagnosed in a timely fashion died while receiving nonsurgical treatment. Thus, an intent-to-treat analysis (nonsurgical vs. surgical treatment) revealed a death rate of 5% (3/58) with conservative management versus 21% (6/28) with surgery. CONCLUSIONS: These results support nonsurgical management, including early antibiotic treatment, in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis. Patients with infected necrosis still represent a high-risk group in severe acute pancreatitis, and for them surgical treatment seems preferable.     

Management of infection in acute pancreatitis

The clinical course of acute pancreatitis varies from a mild, transitory illness to a severe, rapidly fatal disease. In about 80% to 90% of cases pancreatitis presents as a mild, self-limiting disease with low morbidity and mortality. Unlike mild pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis develops in about 15% of patients, with infection of pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis representing the single most important risk factor for a fatal outcome. Infection of pancreatic necrosis in the natural course develops in the second and third week after onset of the disease and is reported in 40% to 70% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Just recently, prevention of infection by prophylactic antibiotic treatment and assessment of the infection status of pancreatic necrosis by fine-needle aspiration have been established in the management of severe pancreatitis. Because medical treatment alone will result in a mortality rate of almost 100% in patients with signs of local and systemic septic complications, patients with infected necrosis must undergo surgical intervention, which consists of an organ-preserving necrosectomy combined with a postoperative closed lavage concept that maximizes further evacuation of infected debris and exudate. However, intensive care treatment, including prophylactic antibiotics, reduces the infection rate and delays the need for surgery in most patients until the third or fourth week after the onset of symptoms. At that time, debridement of necrosis is technically easier to perform, due to better demarcation between viable and necrotic tissue compared with necrosectomy earlier in the disease. In contrast, surgery is rarely needed in the presence of sterile pancreatic necrosis. In those patients the conservative approach is supported by the present data. Received: March 20, 2002 / Accepted: April 15, 2002 Offprint requests to: W. Uhl     

Nekrosektomie oder anatomiegerechte Resektion bei akuter Pankreatitis

Necrotizing pancreatitis is still associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Formerly, surgical treatment with early and extensive pancreatic resection has been the standard. Improvements in our understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease and progress in the field of intensive care therapy have made conservative therapy the initial standard in the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. A considerable percentage of patients with sterile necrosis can be managed with low morbidity and mortality by conservative treatment without operation. Nevertheless, surgical treatment is indicated in patients with infected necrosis and in sterile necrosis if multiorgan failure persists over a limited period of time despite maximum intensive care therapy. Pancreatic resection should be abandoned for surgical treatment of pancreatic necrosis, as results with regard to morbidity, mortality and long-term outcome are unsatisfactory. Today the surgical standard is careful digital necrosectomy, which must be followed by either postoperatve drainage, repeated open lavage or continuous closed lavage. In experienced hands, all three procedures provide similar results with regard to morbidity and mortality.     

Acute pancreatic necrosis complicated by infection and gastro-intestinal translocation: pathogenesis correlation and therapeutic implication

The authors define pathogenetics correlations as a acute necrotizing pancreatitis complicated by infection and bacterial translocation. Acute necrotizing pancreatitis infection occurs for gastrointestinal bacterial translocation due to structural and functional modifications of intestinal mucosa. These modifications are results of mucosa ischemic-reperfusion system caused by systemic emodynamic instability in micro- and macro-circulation of splanchnic district. Emodynamic systemic instability has a central role in different multiple physiopathologic phenomena (ipovolemic shock; pancreatic shock, SIRS), which is caused by acute pancreatic necrosis and carries to common way established by severe systemics emodinamics modifications; these changes promote growth of adverse events which conduce by means of process previously described to bacterial translocation and infection of acute pancreatic necrosis. Indeed, emodynamic systemic instability of any etiology, can determine for one way bacterial translocation and on the other acute ischemic pancreatitis; both phenomena concur lead to cause beginning of acute necrotizing pancreatitis complicated by infection. The authors confirm that improved knowledge of acute pancreatic necrosis complicated by infection and own pathogenetic correlations with bacterial translocation, allows the realization of therapeutic measures aimed to prophylaxis of infection of acute pancreatic necrosis. Central emodynamic stability regularization of splanchnic perfusion and antibiotic prophylaxis, have a central role in prophylaxis of infection of acute pancreatic necrosis. Antibiotic is given by systemic (imipenem e.v.) and selective decontamination of gastrointestinal tract (SDD). SDD provides for oral antibiotic prophylaxis (PTA protocol) and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (cefotaxime and gentamicin), in addition to microbiologic and gastrointestinal monitoring. If on the one hand the role of SDD about mortality reduction is not clear, however, on the other it is well recognized capacity of reduction the intercurrents and pulmonary infections. Other Authors think that SDD is insignificant on early mortality, whereas, is a good option to reduce late and overall mortality of acute pancreatic necrosis complicated by infection.     

Enzymatic Debridement in Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Multiple organ failure and pancreatic necrosis are the factors that determine prognosis in acute pancreatitis attacks. We investigated the effects of collagenase on the debridement of experimental pancreatic necrosis. The study covered 4 groups; each group had 10 rats. Group I was the necrotizing pancreatitis group. Group II was the collagenase group with pancreatic loge by isotonic irrigation following necrotizing pancreatitis. Group III was the collagenase group with pancreatic loge following necrotizing pancreatitis. Group IV was the intraperitoneal collagenase group following necrotizing pancreatitis. The progress of the groups was compared hematologically and histopathologically. There was no difference among the groups regarding the levels of leukocyte, hemogram, and urea. The differences in AST levels between Group I and II; and differences in glucose, calcium, LDH, AST, and amylase between Group II and III; between Group II and IV; between Group I and III; and between Group I and IV were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between Group II and III, and Group II and IV regarding edema, acinar necrosis, inflammatory cell infiltration, hemorrhage, and fat necrosis (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the collagenase preparation used in this experimental pancreatitis model was found to be effective in the debridement of pancreatic necrosis.Key words: Acute pancreatitis, Necrose, Collagenase, DebridementAcute pancreatitis (AP) is a nonbacterial inflammatory disease of the pancreas that can range from interstitial edema to pancreatic necrosis in its severest form. In about 20% of AP attacks necrosis can develop in the pancreas while the disease limits itself and regresses in a couple of days in many patients (80%).¹The definitions that are still widely in effect today regarding the classification of acute pancreatitis were determined in 1992 at the Atlanta Conference.² The conference aimed at achieving a common classification for AP and its complications. Within severe acute pancreatitis, of which necrotizing pancreatitis is a part, organ failure and local complications can be seen (necrosis, pseudocyst, and abscess). Multiple organ failure and pancreatic necrosis are the factors that determine the prognosis. Half of the mortalities are observed within a period of 1 or 2 weeks. Necrotizing pancreatitis makes up for the 10–20% of AP cases. Severe pancreatitis has a high mortality rate and functional diseases like diabetes are seen in one-third to one-fifth of the recovered patients.³While the mortality rates are about 10% in the presence of sterile pancreatic necrosis, they go up over 30% in the existence of infected necrosis.¹ Regarding acute necrotizing pancreatitis, there is still no consensus on surgical indications and the time of surgical intervention, the surgical method to be used, and which patients need conservative treatment and which ones need surgical treatment. The goal in the surgical treatment of acute necrotizing pancreatitis is to isolate the necrotic tissue that might cause sepsis and multiple organ failure and to reduce the risk of mortality. The timing of necrosectomy as well as the way in which necrosectomy is performed is significant in necrotizing pancreatitis. The issue of the possibility that necrosectomy can be performed through minimally-invasive interventions instead of open surgery is still being discussed.³We planned to investigate the activity of collagenase clostridiopeptidase A (EC 3.424.3), which has never been attempted before in the debridement of experimental pancreatic necrosis (but which has been used for enzymatic debridement), and the enzyme preparation containing the accompanying proteases (Sterile Novuxol^®, Abbott, Uetersen, Germany). We aimed to evaluate the response of the disease to treatment through laboratory and histopathologic data, by using the enzyme preparation to treat necrotizing pancreatitis.     

Surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis

The most important diagnostic step in the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis is the discrimination between acute interstitial and necrotizing pancreatitis. Measurement of C-reactive protein, lactic acid dehydrogenase, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and alpha-2-macroglobulin and contrast-enhanced CT are useful in detecting the necrotizing course of acute pancreatitis. C-reactive protein, lactic acid dehydrogenase, and contrast-enhanced CT offer detection rates of 85 per cent to more than 90 per cent for pancreatic necrosis. Surgical decision-making in necrotizing pancreatitis should be based on clinical, morphologic, and bacteriologic data. Patients with focal pancreatic necrosis, in general, respond well to medical treatment and do not need surgery. Extended (50 per cent or more) pancreatic necroses, infected necroses, and intrapancreatic parenchymal necroses plus extrapancreatic fatty tissue necroses are indicators for surgical management. The decision for the timing of operation in patients with proved necrotizing pancreatitis should be based on clinical criteria: the development of an acute surgical abdomen, generalized sepsis, shock, persisting or increasing organ dysfunction, or some combination thereof despite maximum intensive care treatment for at least 3 days. Major pancreatic resection for the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis appears disadvantageous. Necrosectomy and continuous local lavage allow debridement of devitalized tissue and preservation of vital pancreatic tissue. Postoperative local lavage thus results in an atraumatic evacuation of necrotic tissue, the bacterial material, and biologically active substances. The hospital mortality rate of patients treated with necrosectomy and continuous local lavage (the Ulm protocol) is below 10 per cent. Nevertheless, controlled prospective clinical trials should be performed in order to bring more precision to our clinical decisions in respect to the role of surgery for this disease.     

Surgery in the treatment of acute pancreatitis--open pancreatic necrosectomy.

Management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis has changed significantly over the past years. Early management is non-surgically and solely supportive. Today, more patients survive the early phase of severe pancreatitis due to improvements of intensive-care-medicine. Pancreatic infection is the major risk factor with regard to morbidity and mortality in the late phase of severe acute pancreatitis. Whereas early surgery and surgery for sterile necrosis can only be recommended in selected cases, pancreatic infection is a well accepted indication for surgical treatment. Surgery should ideally be postponed until four weeks after the onset of symptoms as necrosis is well demarcated at that time. Four surgical techniques can be performed with comparable results regarding mortality: necrosectomy combined with (1) open packing, (2) planned staged relaparotomies with repeated lavage, (3) closed continuous lavage of the retroperitoneum, and (4) closed packing. However, closed continuous lavage of the retroperitoneum, and closed packing seem to be associated with a lower morbidity compared to the other two approaches. Advances in radiologic imaging, new developments of interventional radiology and other minimal access interventions have revolutionized the management of many surgical conditions over the past decades. However, minimal invasive surgery and interventional therapy for infected necrosis should be limited to specific indications in patients who are critically ill and otherwise unfit for conventional surgery. Open surgical debridement is the "gold standard" for treatment of infected pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis.     

《急性胰腺炎诊治指南（2014）》解读——急性胰腺炎外科诊治现状与进展

中华医学会外科学分会胰腺外科学组于2007年颁布的《重症急性胰腺炎诊治指南》对我国急性胰腺炎诊治的规范化及疗效的改善发挥了重要作用。近年来,急性胰腺炎的研究取得了巨大进展,对其诊治的很多重要方面产生了明显的影响。为此,学组对之进行了修订,修订后的指南更名为《急性胰腺炎诊治指南（2014）》。参照国际最新进展,急性胰腺炎依据严重程度分为轻症急性胰腺炎（MAP）、中重症急性胰腺炎（MSAP）和重症急性胰腺炎（SAP）。MSAP与SAP的主要区别在于器官功能衰竭持续的时间不同,MSAP为短暂性（≤48 h）,SAP为持续性（>48 h）。按照国内的临床经验,病程分为3期。早期（急性期）：发病1~2周,此期以全身炎症反应综合征（SIRS）和器官功能衰竭为主要表现,此期构成第一个死亡高峰。中期（演进期）：急性期过后,以胰周液体积聚、坏死性液体积聚或包裹性坏死为主要表现。后期（感染期）：发病4周以后,可发生胰腺及胰周坏死组织合并感染,此期构成MSAP/SAP病人的第二个死亡高峰。局部并发症包括急性胰周液体积聚（APFC）、急性坏死物积聚（ANC）、包裹性坏死（WON）及胰腺假性囊肿。外科治疗的指征主要是胰腺局部并发症继发感染或产生压迫症状。无菌性坏死积液无症状者无需手术治疗。手术治疗应遵循延期原则。感染性坏死可先行针对性抗生素治疗及B超或CT导向下经皮穿刺引流（PCD）。胰腺感染性坏死的手术方式可分为PCD、内镜、微创手术（主要包括小切口手术、视频辅助手术）及开放手术（包括经腹或经腹膜后途径的胰腺坏死组织清除并置管引流）。胰腺感染性坏死病情复杂多样,各种手术方式可遵循个体化原则单独或联合应用。     

JPN Guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: surgical management

Acute pancreatitis represents a spectrum of disease ranging from a mild, self-limited course to a rapidly progressive, severe illness. The mortality rate of severe acute pancreatitis exceeds 20%, and some patients diagnosed as mild to moderate acute pancreatitis at the onset of the disease may progress to a severe, life-threatening illness within 2–3 days. The Japanese (JPN) guidelines were designed to provide recommendations regarding the management of acute pancreatitis in patients having a diversity of clinical characteristics. This article sets forth the JPN guidelines for the surgical management of acute pancreatitis, excluding gallstone pancreatitis, by incorporating the latest evidence for the surgical management of severe pancreatitis in the Japanese-language version of the evidence-based Guidelines for the Management of Acute Pancreatitis published in 2003. Ten guidelines are proposed: (1) computed tomography-guided or ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for bacteriology should be performed in patients suspected of having infected pancreatic necrosis; (2) infected pancreatic necrosis accompanied by signs of sepsis is an indication for surgical intervention; (3) patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis should be managed conservatively, and surgical intervention should be performed only in selected cases, such as those with persistent organ complications or severe clinical deterioration despite maximum intensive care; (4) early surgical intervention is not recommended for necrotizing pancreatitis; (5) necrosectomy is recommended as the surgical procedure for infected pancreatic necrosis; (6) simple drainage should be avoided after necrosectomy, and either continuous closed lavage or open drainage should be performed; (7) surgical or percutaneous drainage should be performed for pancreatic abscess; (8) pancreatic abscesses for which clinical findings are not improved by percutaneous drainage should be subjected to surgical drainage immediately; (9) pancreatic pseudocysts that produce symptoms and complications or the diameter of which increases should be drained percutaneously or endoscopically; and (10) pancreatic pseudocysts that do not tend to improve in response to percutaneous drainage or endoscopic drainage should be managed surgically.